Debates of June 9th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. secretary of state's comments, but I would like to point out very clearly to the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions who has a long title and does a good job, I am sure, that it was his party that brought forward the motion we are debating right now. He may not know that because I think he just got here.

He accuses our party of procedural wrangling but it was his party that brought the motion forward. His House leader brought in the motion that we are to sit until 4 a.m.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that just before the two hours are up we are talking about membership in the House and whether or not the Liberals will be attentive and already we find that we do not have quorum in this place. That is truly unfortunate.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to count heads in this place once again after all this debate.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting.

This morning, the hon. member for Bourassa accused the Reformers of not having substance, of not taking part in the debates, of contradicting themselves and of being interested in technical rather than substantive positions.

Of course, this upset them. The Reformers rose and started protesting. They swore that this was not their intention.

Let me give you one example, just one. The Reformers talked about human rights, about democracy. Barely two weeks ago, we led a mission that went to Chiapas to look at the situation of human rights, democracy and people whose lives are threatened. No Reformers accompanied us, because of a decision made by their own party. They are not interested in protecting the interests of people or democracy. They are not interested in fighting poverty. They are only interested in debates of a technical nature.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, talking about human rights in response to that nonsense, I only need to say that if the Liberal government cared so much about human rights why was it so anxious to jump in and sell a bunch of Candu reactors to the country of China without first discussing human rights with that country?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 12.21 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 27(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 191

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to stand in the House to present a number of petitions signed by people mostly from the wonderful riding of Elk Island. I represent them in the issue of the definition of marriage. There is a petition circulating now by people who are concerned about the redefinition of marriage. These petitioners simply ask that we leave it the way it is, that it be defined as a marriage to be entered into only by a single male and a single female.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on another subject.

These petitioners ask that the House of Commons preserve the right of families to exercise caring, loving discipline to their children and that right not be removed by the removal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners, mainly from Kamloops, Winnipeg, Kitchener and Guelph point out the concern they have regarding the MAI. They are aware that the government simply set it aside until later this fall in an attempt once again to impose this agreement on the people of Canada and eliminate much or our sovereignty. They point out that they are simply against the MAI and urge the government not to consider it any further.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in another petition, the petitioners are concerned about the changes the government is planning to the pension system of Canada. They say that Canadians have worked hard over the years to build our country. In no way should they have their pensions clawed back as the present system does and particularly as the proposals have it. They are simply against any of the suggestions so far regarding changes and amendments to the Canada pension system.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this petition, the petitioners are concerned about the unfair tax system that presently exists in Canada and are urging a complete study of fair tax reform. They are suggesting that every corporate tax exemption be considered on its merits. They assume that none of them have any merit that would withstand a fair evaluation. Therefore, they are anticipating that we will simply do away with all corporate tax loopholes.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a great many petitions to present concerning the multilateral agreement on investment.

This is an agreement that was to be concluded in October but was not. A great many Canadians are happy about that. However, they want the government to go further than simply not arriving at an agreement in October. They want parliament to reject the current framework of the MAI negotiations. They want the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime but one that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interest.

I have many such petitions rolling in from all across the country. It shows that Canadians are urging the government to take a more critical attitude toward the current globalization model and seek a different way of forming a global community, that is to say, forming a global community and not just a global marketplace.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, similar to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I also have a petition that touches on the subject of the MAI and the manner in which the Canadian government has negotiated or attempted to negotiate this agreement behind closed doors.

This petition calls upon the government to have more open participatory discussions in the public forum that are transparent. They urge the government to do so forthwith.

I am very honoured to table this petition on behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and do so pursuant to Standing Order 36.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise quickly and pose the question that I have posed on numerous occasions here in the House with respect to Question No. 21 that languishes further on the Order Paper, eight months and counting. We are very anxious to have this question answered.

It is a very straightforward question but we have been told time and time again that it involves a great deal of investigatory work on behalf of the government. There are 30 departments and we want to know where ministers were at a certain set period of time. Perhaps we could get an indication from the parliamentary secretary when an answer will be coming.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is presently chairing a committee meeting and I will bring this submission to his attention at the first opportunity.